I would not think that the primary threat to the pertinent civil liberty would come in the form of an executive order. The latitude available for abuse by way of new legislation would be much greater.
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
Yes I am blunt.
Frank, I did not read him accusing you of being blunt.
Nope. The issue is who decides if an Executive Order is unconstitutional. And here's a hint: it's not you.
The question of constitutionality is one for the court. You might have an opinion, but your opinion doesn't really count. The opinions of courts on such things will affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Yours will not.
You apparently haven't been paying attention to this thread. The answer is "no." The amount of the tax can only be changed by Congress amending the statute.
The utility of an attorney on the internet, as in real life, rests in helping laymen understand the law. Responding to what appeared to be good-faith questions from a layman with brittle hostility is not blunt; it is just impolite.
As to the matter of executive orders during World War II and the exclusion orders applied against some populations, it is true that the court upheld the government action in Korematsu and that the authority of the executive to issue an executive order was not in itself at issue. It would also be reasonable for a layman to read that decision and be impressed by the extent of the handwringing in which the court engaged on its way to upholding the government.